Was I wrong about Virtual Playing Orchestra?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 07. 2024
- --- LINKS:
- Nils' list of unambiguously licensed sampled instruments that for sure don't require attribution or specific licensing:
hilbricht.net/articles/
- Carl Irwin's initial video replying to my "Don't use VPO" video:
• Copyright and Sample L...
- Carl's 2nd, more consice video on the subject:
• Virtual Playing Orches...
- Carl's public document on the subject:
drive.google.com/file/d/15onB...
- My initial "Don't use VPO" video (now unlisted).
• WARNING! Virtual Playi...
Please DO NOT send people the above link - send them a link this THIS video instead for full context. Thank you.
--- TIMESTAMPS (contributed by 0GL):
0:00 Intro & Apology
0:47 Unfa's original argument
2:27 Summary of Carl Irwin's counterargument
3:58 What happened to the original video?
4:54 The problem is very fuzzy (do licenses transform or not?)
6:40 Conclusion & Recommendations
8:03 Outro & Announcements
--- SPECIAL THANKS
To LogosCoder for his editing work on this video!
To MattKC for fixing issues with Olive 0.2 just-in-time and making this amazing libre video editor!
--- SUPPORT MY WORK:
/ unfa
liberapay.com/unfa
paypal.me/unfa
--- CHECK OUT MY MUSIC:
audius.co/unfa
unfa.bandcamp.com
/ unfa
--- FIND MY VIDEOS:
- PeerTube (open-source, decentralized):
peertube.kx.studio/c/unfastudio/
- Odysee (user-side is open-source, centralized):
odysee.com/@unfa
- CZcams (fully proprietary, centralized):
/ unfa000
--- GET IN TOUCH:
mastodon.social/@unfa
chat.unfa.xyz
/ discord
/ unfamusic (absolute last resort)
--- LIVESTREAMS:
- Next event:
czcams.com/users/unfa000live
- Past events:
• unfa live
- Submit music:
forms.gle/pLDetJM2WZf8eTRt5
--- ORDER OR PRINT YOUR OWN MERCH:
teespring.com/stores/unfa
github.com/unfa/merch
--- OTHER INFO:
This video was produced exclusively with open-source software and GNU/Linux.
- Studio software:
archlinux.org (operating system)
www.kde.org/plasma-desktop (desktop environment)
www.olivevideoeditor.org/ (v. 0.1.2; video editing)
obsproject.com/ (video capture / streaming)
www.maartenbaert.be/simplescr... (additional screen capture)
www.blender.org/ (3d art and animation)
inkscape.org/ (2d vector art and thumbnail images)
gimp.org/ (photo manipulation)
kx.studio/Applications:Carla (live audio processing)
Audacity [pre MuseGroup version] (final audio touchup and level control)
- Studio hardware:
CPU: AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
GPU: AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB
Mobo: Gigabyte B550 AORUS ELITE V2
Audio I/F: PreSonus Studio24C
Mics: Behringer B-1 (condenser); Shure SM57 (dynamic) + A2WS; Boya BY-M1 (lavalier)
Main cam: Panasonic Lumix GH5
Top cam: Logitech C920
Aux cam: OnePlus 5T
MIDI controller: M-Audio Oxygen 49 MKIV
Coffee machine: DeLonghi ECP33.21
Mug: is.gd/unfamug
---
Now go, make some music!
![unfa's Live Electronic Music (uLEM) [2023-07-30] - first encounter](/img/n.gif)
Here is a more direct discussion regarding some of the replies to this video:
czcams.com/video/jD6oeY7n_tw/video.html
I apologize for the sound of little feet and voices... but, fatherhood.
Edit: In the video, I say that one cannot use a protected sample to create a new library or instrument. What I meant to say was that one cannot distribute or share such a library or instrument. Obviously, resampling (which often includes compiling and 'homebrew' instrument making -sf2, sfz, wav players, etc.) is a process of composition and sequencing. Sharing these tools, on the other hand, even among friends and associates, is piracy... unless the sound is absolutely altered from it's original form in an unrecognizable, destructive/additive way... and such a standard could be challenged in litigation, even if ultimately found to be legal. In effect... don't share protected library sounds in other libraries.
Bravo Unfa, always human, sensitive, sensible, human, nice and friendly. Saludos! ☺👍
All things aside, I really loved the way you made this video!! ♥
Thank you! I'd love to know what specifically did you like? Or not like? :D
@@unfa00 The VPN advertisement xD
@@unfa00 I liked the whole, but specifically the visuals and jokes (visual comedy?) ... the VPN ad, the mosquito-- for instance
WOW!!! I needed to hear that! This is very valuable information, because there's no way anyone can even keep track of all the licensing and who owns what when working with samples, since you can easily download sample libraries that are already in violation of some kind. Also, In some cases you could amass so many credits, the list would take up several pages in a CD booklet, you may have to compromise your own artwork and lyrics... that you want to include because it can make the printing cost too high!
I still think we need to run this by Leonard French, "CZcamss favorite copyright lawyer"! I bet he can give us every detail correctly!
The first thing to understand is that these libraries were published to be used in *your* creative work, work to which you own the intellectual property rights. Crediting the developers is a courtesy to them, not a transfer of rights. On my own website (and in some forums) I have a blanket CC statement of libraries I use; they differ from page to page, and sometimes are different today than yesterday. I am grateful for their work and it doesn't hurt a bit to say so, and to help market their project - the real reason for the CC.
the CC answer is ok and expected. copyright matters are usually based on jurisprudence. until someone sues a VPO user (or someone else who used CC-BY-SA samples and considered it would be a transformation), and some court takes a decision, I suppose that there's no "right answer". IANAL, and personally will stay away from VPO.
0:00 Intro & Apology
0:47 Unfa's original argument
2:27 Summary of Carl Irwin's counterargument
3:58 What happened to the original video?
4:54 The problem is very fuzzy (do licenses transform or not?)
6:40 Conclusion & Recommendations
8:03 Outro & Announcements
Love the shirt btw :)
Thank you so much! I'll copy these into description with a credit :)
I hope what was stressing you wasn't my video though?
@@unfa00 No it's other stuff :) But timestamping other people's videos oddly enough works to calm me down somehow - anyway, yw!
As always writing a comment to support the channel
Thank you! I really appreciate that :)
BTW, very recently the channel has crossed 25 000 subscribers!
@@unfa00 I'm glad to hear it! ☺ I hope you'll continue making videos, I find them very helpful 😇
We need more Linux musicians 😎
you're awesome! followed
That mosquito programming thing you did there made me giggle lololol
Thanks! :)
This argument puts the applicability of the license of even Vocaloid soundbanks onto question.
Someone has marked the joke in here as a sponsor segment in SponsorBlock.
I am not sure if they realized it was a joke :D
Not related to the subject : ok so I try to load the video since an hour, and nothing, its locked loading for ever... Good work man, you allowed me to go on peer tube and get a greater and quicker interface to (this time) load and watch your video ;)
I'm glad PeerTube worked then :D
Very neat video stuff in this video, Unfa :) like at 3:32
Thanks! I really enjoy doing stuff like that :)
Damn, that was like finally being able to ask god what the meaning of life is and being told back "I don't know, I am busy with more important things" :(
Sorry to disappoint you.
thanks unfa!
Mhmm... so I'll go with BBCSO Discover by Spitfire Audio which is free but unfortunately, it's not FOSS because of their dedicated plugin but hey for my experience... it's good imo.
Also, I came across that is alternative to VPO:
VSCO
VCSL
Orchestools
Feel free to take a look at these 🗿👍
@@andx4024 np.
Be aware that VSCO lists VPO as an official variant of their library. They link it as a format on their download page. They do so because of what I have explained.
@@i-scoresmusic3928 ah I see...
could've used more notes from will smith's apology video. no sigh at the beginning. directly apologized to creator. didn't focus on self. 5/10 apology.
(jk, ily)
If you want to use these Samples for any Kind of Software, Virtual Instrument or Sample Pack, you'll have to stick to the Licensing Terms. But if you create a Composition with these Samples, you have the Rights to the Composition. Because the Software Creator already made sure that the Samples are Licensed for use in this Context. Whether Sample Pack or Software Instrument.
The argument that the license is void because music is a transformative work of a sample is interesting. For a moment I was thinking "by that logic, you could sample a copyrighted song", but then I realised I was confusing "sample" as a noun with "sample" as a verb. Samples aren't songs, but sampled songs were songs, so that transformation doesn't take place.
Anyway, I think it's good just to look at the individual licenses and treat the license as you would any other material's license. If Airwindows' RickenbackerBass library is CC-BY, then I'll credit him in the description of anything I make with it, transformative or otherwise. It's all very interesting.
I'm curious what your opinion is of the general spectrum of GNU puritanism, like the few folks who go so far as to flash an open-source BIOS, and not allow any "binary blobs", proprietary drivers, codecs that allow for DRM etc. on their computers? Because there's a bit of closed-source in everything it seems, especially in media orientated work.
I wouldn't say that the license is "void"... it simply isn't applied in this way. The license does not break down at any point. It simply is focused on only the power granted by copyright law. This power is to protect the virtual instrument or library from copy without proper rights. The use of a virtual instrument as a virtual instrument is not a copy of the instrument... it's the end use of the instrument. The license has no application to the music.
A common term that is responsible for muddling up the discussion is the word "sample". Several responders have claimed that the use of samples in transformative works has been established as illegal in cases time and time again. This simply is not true, considering what those cases address and what the word "sample" means in those cases. I created another video that addresses this term and the way that it should and should not be applied to the discussion of instrument libraries and virtual instruments like VPO (as well as the commercial ones). Enjoy:
czcams.com/video/EGMeEyS81p4/video.html
It is like a library in programming. You can copyright a derivative work that uses a library, just not the library itself...
Yes, though so called "artistic works" (content) are regarded differently than "engineering works" (code). It seems analogous but it's not the same.
That's only true for libraries which are licensed in such a way as to allow that. Libraries licensed under GPL for example, require that any software that links with the library is also licensed under GPL. An application which uses such a library is considered as a derivative work of the library in this case.
This is why GNU created the LGPL (Lesser GPL) specifically for libraries, which allows linking the library with non-GPL works, while modifications to the library itself must be released under LGPL.
This is an example of where the concept of derivative works in software does not match with concepts of transformative works in creative disciplines.
Hey unfa, you should try and make a song using aplay and files
So dum dum tidi-tidi dum dum under pressure is different from dum dum tidi-tidi dum dum ice ice baby.
It sounds like a grey area frankly.
If anything happened in court later on surrounding the subject, it would be setting a precedent, either for or against fair use doctrine in such a case as if VPO was being used.
It's not gray at all. All virtual instruments (including commercial ones) can only have copyright application AS libraries and they need no other rights as they are intended to be used as instruments. Transformation as described in fair use is not a gray loophole. It is merely the reason why libraries and virtual instruments can get the protection that they get and why they need no protection from use in music. Spitfire and Eastwest do not relinquish any copyright in their EULAs. They don't need to. They maintain all copyright as libraries and instruments. CC cannot create new rights apart from copyright law. This whole thing is a big misunderstanding.
This thing about transformativity keeps me wondering. Elsewhere I have read that it applies when the transformed work cannot directly substitute the original work. But that does not explain why hip hop artists in the 80s and 90s got sued for sampling. For sure Don't Believe The Hype by Public Enemy can not in any way, shape or form directly substitute Hot Pants by James Brown. Probably laws concerning this are different from country to country?
The word sample has 2 applications in the discussion. A sample can be a sound (as in an instrument library) or it can be a section of music (as with the hip hop artist use). We use the word sample for both, but they are not the same.
So I dare you to use it in your next live stream. Go on! If it stays up indefinitely, it would certainly work towards answering your question regarding legality.
The fact that in practice nobody would sue me or care, doesn't mean I am not violating someone's copyright :) Not anyone has means of exercising their rights. Justice is not free.
@@unfa00 Fair call, mate.
Better be on the cautious side! There was a 20 year lawsuit between Kraftwerk and Moses Pelham due to a used sample: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_on_Metal_(song)
What is recognizable and what is not? Do you want to find it out in court? Probably not.
As I understand it sampling someone's music is different, because you're taking a piece of music and reusing it in another piece of music.
In theory it's all just sound recordings, but taking a sampled instrument is not "remixing" - it's just using the instrument as intended.
The problem is how we interpret the licensing on the samples as to what should we do with the music we use the instruments in?
I prefer to be on the safe side, so I'll stay away from VPO, but I cannot say anything with full confidence anymore.
If a few seconds of copyright music can be used in short videos wouldn't samples that are cut into tiny pieces like a baby sneeze turned into a snare be acceptable?
Copyright law deals with this in fair use, which speaks to transformation. But a specific case would require litigation. But... as I stated a few other places, the word sample has 2 meanings that apply separately to music and sound. These 2 meanings are being erroneously conflated in the discussion.
So… categorize the library in VPA so you can clearly see what’s under what licence? Problem solved
It does vary by country but in general I don't think the transformative work argument flies. Fair Use is very limited in scope.
I'm a fan of bands like Ministry and Skinny Puppy who use a lot of samples and are very anarchic. You would think they wouldn't care about copyright but I've done a fair bit of reading up on this and it seems that all their samples are properly cleared - even things like movie dialogue. In theory you can even get sued for re-recording movie dialogue in a different voice, as someone owns the copyright to the script.
I think you were right in the first place Unfa, but it's up to others whether they take the risk. Personally I would not use anything that someone else has made without their permission for ethical as much as legal reasons.
Sampling an existing piece of music and using instrument samples are two very different things.
From what I could gather no one has ever been sued for the use of instrument samples, and I highly doubt it will ever happen. The transformative work argument does hold water.
@@QuotePilgrim Well I'm not a lawyer and it does depend where in the world you are. I agree there is very little risk of being caught for copyright infringement with instrument samples but really it is no different to using a piece of music. In the UK anyone who creates anything owns the copyright to their own work automatically. It's up to them how they license it.
@@martin_s_laird it's not "very little risk", it's zero risk. Try finding a case of someone being sued for using instrument samples. It doesn't exist, because that doesn't happen. It never happened, and I bet anything that it will never happen.
Look up a video titled "sampling legality explained" by i-scores music. He explains exactly why using instrument samples is fundamentally different from sampling an existing piece of music, and why you simply cannot be sued for using them.
@@QuotePilgrim It's kind of a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Risk is not the issue. I'd rather just use my own work or people that have chosen to collaborate. It's ethical as well as legal.
@@martin_s_laird It's not unethical to use instrument samples, the people who made them want you to and I assume they understand fair use and that using the samples to make music falls under that.
What the CC-BY is for is to prevent other people to redistribute the samples without attribution, not to prevent people from using them.
That said, I understand not wanting to rely on the work of other people. Thing is, that's not always an option.
the argument with samples as transformative has some point, but usually fair use terms don't always immediately make tools clear? A ton of it really does depend on how recognizable it is to the source. If the new sample is so vastly different one can't even tell even with professional sound decomposition, you could probably argue you've made an entirely new sound. But some could technically call it derivative. It's getting into the same range as abandonware.
Then again. I'm not a lawyer. I think the summation of both of these is prettymuch pay close attention to your licenses regardless of proprietary vs. FOSS.
Ah, but proprietary instrument libraries do NOT relinquish any copyright. The transformation of an instrument sound when used in a musical work is not a loophole... it is an obvious transformation that is intended. What I am saying here applies to all instruments and libraries, proprietary or open. The problem is that folks are confusing the concept of sampling copyrighted works with the appropriate, intended use of an instrument library (which has instrument recordings that we also call samples).
@@i-scoresmusic3928 I get the idea you can sample anything and turn it into music technically. Fair use argument can even be used, but it's confusing because some people have lost cases related to sampling.
Some companies will license using created sounds and place in their terms that you cannot use the sounds or the program in use of making other sample libraries. In some cases, in the case of Omnisphere (which is why I stopped using it even though I could try bottles or a layer to make it work) they demand no use of the program for creating separated playable sound effects in programs or such.
That's just stuff I knew about it.
@@AshnSilvercorp I'm not talking about "sampling anything". We call the elements of instrumental libraries "samples" but they are not borrowed or repurposed elements. They are created as an electronic instrument to be used. The licensing in proprietary libraries is redundant to their copyright. They are describing the kind of activity that violates their copyright, which is sampling their instrument for a library (especially one that is shared). Nowhere do they relinquish their copyright so that music can be made with their instruments. If one believes that using a virtual instrument in music could potentially violate copyright... then there aren't any virtual instruments that have no risk. This erroneous philosophy results from a misunderstanding of the application of copyright and a failure to differentiate between music sampling and creating a legal virtual instrument.
Fair use / transformation is merely the explanation as to why I can use Spitfire products without fear (and a laughable one at that) of them suing for rights to my music. It's not a gray area or a loophole in the slightest.
so this is a youtube apology video?
It is.
I am sure that most instruments are copyrighted.
But even if a Steinway & Sons piano are copyrighted you can make "free" musik while playing on the piano.
The library are like an instrument.
Maybe you should think about your Linux-computer.
The hardware is also copyrighted, are you sure you are allowed to create free music on a copyrighted computer?
as far as I know the only time making a transformative work fails in cort is when someone has a privet contract with George Soros or some other large music media group to not steal and to pay royaltys if something is sampled that or you live in france personaly for safty and to have little to no liability problems cc0 is probably the best and I always use it 50% of the time making my own custom samples is fun and 49% of the other time the last 1% is for when I feel like using a {100% royalty free do whatever you want} pack I got long time ago I think its safe to say that pack is defacto public domain
The Best Orchestra stiil The Human...not Virtual Orchestra..Samples are Tools but Musicians are Source Material...
The difference between the two positions "CC-BY and CC-BY-SA must be respected with samples" and "Ignore the licenses and intention of the authors, just use it how you want" is that if you are wrong in the first case nothing happens because you erred on the side of caution, but in the latter case you violated copyright laws.
Carl Irwin here. It's important to note that:
1. Instrument library creators intend for their libraries to be used to render music that they did not compose nor could they hold a copyright to.
2. All synthesizers that operate via recorded sounds are identical to sound libraries. None of these instruments or commercial sound libraries claim copyright to music rendered nor do they relinquish such rights (because they couldn't have any to give up, regarding the music).
3. Music and sound are explicitely differentiated in copyright law. That's the law. CC licensing is not law. It's language that is subject to the law and allows creators to relinquish some lawful rights while potentially retaining others. CC is not a legal authority.
By all of the reasoning against using a CC licensed library to make music, the same must be applied to commercial products as well... as no commercial products relinquish copyright or license the music rendered by the library.
In effect... all sample libraries must dangerous by this argument.
The presumptions here in the application of the licensing (as it is bound by the law) are simply wrong, and that's where the confusion comes from. Sample libraries can't claim copyright to your music. It's that simple. Sample library creators don't claim copyright to your music. They claim copyright to their libraries. Find me a library creator that tries to do such a thing.
The problem is - I don';t know if people making CC-licensed samples, sampled instruments or instrument libraries are aware that choosing CC-BY license will not give them credit in the music that utilized their work. DrumGizmo's official drumkits would support that - they explicitly require an attribution.
I am afraid CC licenses don't explain that. And I think they should in case this is a simple fact, and not something up for interpretation etc.
@@unfa00 But you see, in the case of DrumGizmo, that they DO know that CC-BY doesn't give them attribution on music because they added language for attribution (as performers, as I recall... strange as it may be) as a license apart from copyright law. Without adding that language, CC-BY affords no such attribution under the copyright law that it serves. Keep in mind that commercial products have no language releasing attribution on music compositions. They don't have this language because they have no such rights to the music under the law. Now, one can create such a license apart from copyright (like DrumGizmo did) but not through any CC licensing because CC cannot (according to the organization) apply additional restrictions to the existing laws. Is it possible that a library creator has a misconception about what CC-BY means with regard to music? It's possible (but I think it's highly unlikely, especially with the VPO sources, as the libraries are made available to be used for music and no litigation exists that would demonstrate the misconception in action). Wherever a misconception of CC-BY occurs, it is the error of the creator, not the user under the law. Again, commercial products relinquish no rights and yet claim no rights while likewise CC licensing cannot add rights. These particular matters aren't really interpretive.
@@unfa00 For example, a kit at DrumGizmo includes the following:
"The CrocellKit drumkit is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
When the samples are used in a composition, any context in which other credits (e.g. to performers) are presented must include an attribution."
The language after the license actually creates terms that CC does not cover by copyright law. Specifically, it fabricates:
"any context in which other credits (e.g. to performers) are presented must include an attribution."
This language is additional licensing that hinges on other performers being credited. That's not part of CC-BY. It's entirely additive licensing, which they have a right to do.
While there’s an interesting legal argument to be made there regarding transformative use, in the USA at least, many artists have been successfully sued for using samples (of any size) in their own music which aren’t compliant with the original works’ license. Judgements have ranged from a percentage of the profits, even to 100% of the profits from the works using the samples.
So you can argue your case and the ‘transformative work’ argument has been unsuccessfully tried before, but actual legal precedent (again, in the US where our copyright laws are extra stupid) has shown it’s a loser in court.
It may be very *unlikely* the owners of samples in VPO will seek to legally enforce their license terms, and you never really know what a court will do, but I think Unfa had the right of it the first time.
As I stated elsewhere, the word sample has 2 meanings in this discussion and they are being conflated. A sample of music is under copyright as music. A sample of sound is under copyright as the sound itself, but not as music. A sound library (which is an instrument) cannot be construed as a musical work when used to render music.
@@i-scoresmusic3928 Your legal theory of "samples created for sampling" vs "sampled from larger work" being somehow different in the eyes of copyright law is interesting. I like it and I wish things worked in that fashion but I've seen no legal precedent to convince me the court system would see it that way. For the record, I like the theory. I just have no reason to believe it's a winner.
@@xenobrain It is written this way in the law. In case law, every single case where samplers have been sued, either the sampling is found to be a violation of music copyright (where the "sample" is lifted from a musical work) OR in the case of sound recording samples (like we are talking about here) the library was a pirate copy (as a library) or the samples were redistributed in another library without permission. Never has an instrument library sample been the subject of a music copyright claim. A sampled sound (like an accented Eb on the oboe) has no musical copyright under the law. Only a fragment of music has musical copyright that only the author can hold. In fact, the written music and the audio recording of the same work, have the same copyright as music. If I write notation that is then used without permission in the recording of a work, then I have a copyright claim... no audio sample is necessary. Be sure to watch my new video that Unfa pinned at the top where I get into this.
@@xenobrain here is discussion on the issue of samples and case law that you are referring to:
czcams.com/video/EGMeEyS81p4/video.html
Keep in mind that I am not suggesting that virtual instruments are safe to use because a creator is not likely to make a claim on your music. I am saying that creators have no standing to make such a claim any more than I have standing to claim rights to your property. You don't live in your house in spite of the risk that I might try to claim it. Likewise, people are free to create music with virtual instruments under copyright law, as there is no standing of risk.
Windows millennium rules! Closed source forever! Yay monthly subscription models 😂🤣😅
Yeah, this is exactly what I said as a comment on your original video on VPO.
Sure, I'm just some random person on the internet with no credentials so why would you care about my opinion, but I'm pretty sure I did also list a few articles on copyright from reputable sources which corroborated what I said so...
I told you so.
ok. but take away that blue yellow flag. i thought you were polish. put up a white red flag
I am Polish, the Ukrainian flag is here as a symbol of my (pathetic - what can I do really?) support for the oppressed nation.